Apple sued for callings its mouse Mighty

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 118
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    But it's ok for Apple to sue every creature on the planet who uses the word "pod".



    They don't. They wouldn't. They can't. Only things that would confuse the consumer.
  • Reply 42 of 118
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 1,831member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    They don't. They wouldn't. They can't. Only things that would confuse the consumer.



    I don't know about that... Apple strong-armed Google, Yahoo, and MSN into denying anyone using click-ads to include the word iPod. You can't even advertise your product as being compatible with an iPod, nope... it's "illegal". I personally find that to be unfair, because if I designed a product that works with an iPod, such as an arm-band, I should be able to advertise saying that this armband was designed for the iPod. Some companies seem to slip through the cracks, but very rarely.



    As for the Mighty-Mouse name, how does that cause any damages to M&M. It's not like someone will end-up buying an Apple product instead! If anything it should've brought them more sales.
  • Reply 43 of 118
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    As for the Mighty-Mouse name, how does that cause any damages to M&M. It's not like someone will end-up buying an Apple product instead! If anything it should've brought them more sales.



    Their argument is, when you search for Mighty Mouse, you can't find the M&M one, even if you know what you are looking for. (Unless you remember the company name of "Man & Machine")





    I predict an out of court settlement: M&M gets a small payout from Apple and CBS, but in return both turns over the rights to their trademark application, AND starts paying a small royalty to use it in the future.
  • Reply 44 of 118
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    I don't know about that... Apple strong-armed Google, Yahoo, and MSN into denying anyone using click-ads to include the word iPod. You can't even advertise your product as being compatible with an iPod, nope... it's "illegal".



    But iPod is a word that Apple created. It didn't exist before the ubiquitous PMP was invented. I replied to Haggar who stated that Apple sues anyone for using the common word pod.
  • Reply 45 of 118
    skottichanskottichan Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If apple referred to the mouse as being mighty. For instance, "Apple's iMouse is one mighty mouse" they would be okay. I can't find a legitimate sentence for Star Wars.



    PS: If anyone cares, Lucus trademarked Droid.



    And DC & Marvel Comics share the trademark for the term "super-hero"





    I'm still guessing that the court is going to side with CBS/Apple on this one. Like mentioned before when someone over 30 hears "Mighty Mouse" they generally think of the cartoon character. I mean hell, when I first heard of Apple using the name, I immediately thought "Oh man, if the owners of the cartoon didn't okay that, Apple's gonna get sued".
  • Reply 46 of 118
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    I don't know about that... Apple strong-armed Google, Yahoo, and MSN into denying anyone using click-ads to include the word iPod. You can't even advertise your product as being compatible with an iPod, nope... it's "illegal". I personally find that to be unfair, because if I designed a product that works with an iPod, such as an arm-band, I should be able to advertise saying that this armband was designed for the iPod. .



    What does that have to do with the claim you were defending (that Apple sues anyone who uses the word 'pod' in their product?



    There's no doubt that 'iPod' is unique to Apple and they have a right to defend it. 'Pod' is not (at least not generically. There is some risk of confusion if you use it to describe a music playing device).



    What you're describing is a perfectly legal defense of trademark although I believe you're wrong about not being able to claim that it's compatible.. I can't use the 'Made for iPod' logo without permission since that is trademarked. I can create a new case that fits and iPod and sell it as compatible without permission, as long as I properly identify the iPod trademark as belonging to Apple. There is also the complexity that some of those products also require licensing Apple's patents related to the iPod, as well.
  • Reply 47 of 118
    skottichanskottichan Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lafe View Post


    Okay, one more to cross off of the list.



    Next up:



    - MacDonalds sues for infringement on "Big Mac" concept. "iMac" is too close.

    - Any guy named "Mac" sues. (Class-action, maybe.)

    - PETA sues for use of the word "Mouse", which should be reserved for furry rodents.

    - Amazon or some League of Librarians sues because MacBooks aren't really "books".

    - Anyone who breathes air sues because the "MacBook Air" product is confusing to them.



    And so on. Until every creature on the planet has sued Apple at least once, we'll keep

    hearing about these, I guess.



    What's really sad,



    "Fred "Jeep" Molnar received his nickname at birth. He later opened an eating establishment in Alpine called Jeep's Bar and Restaurant. In 1987, 15 years after Molnar started his business, Chrysler Corp. sued him for federal trademark infringement. Molnar told the carmakers to take a hike, which they grudgingly did. Many sources believe that the name jeep originated with the letters GP, standing for "General Purpose," which were affixed to the iconic Willys MB U.S. Army Jeep from World War II. "
  • Reply 48 of 118
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    As for the Mighty-Mouse name, how does that cause any damages to M&M. It's not like someone will end-up buying an Apple product instead! If anything it should've brought them more sales.



    I don't think it would "bring" them any more sales, the opposite is more likely to be true. This is especially if all the results of a search return Apple's version because theirs is the more popular brand, even if you're looking for the other company's product, unless you knew what that company's name was.
  • Reply 49 of 118
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skottichan View Post


    What's really sad,



    "Fred "Jeep" Molnar received his nickname at birth. He later opened an eating establishment in Alpine called Jeep's Bar and Restaurant. In 1987, 15 years after Molnar started his business, Chrysler Corp. sued him for federal trademark infringement. Molnar told the carmakers to take a hike, which they grudgingly did. Many sources believe that the name jeep originated with the letters GP, standing for "General Purpose," which were affixed to the iconic Willys MB U.S. Army Jeep from World War II. "



    From March 1936...( source )









    Another shitty move by an automotive company...

    Uzi Nissan had established a business under his surname Nissan while Nissan was still Datsun and also registered the domain name as such before Nissan automotive thought to enter the world wide web.
  • Reply 50 of 118
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skottichan View Post


    What's really sad,



    "Fred "Jeep" Molnar received his nickname at birth. He later opened an eating establishment in Alpine called Jeep's Bar and Restaurant. In 1987, 15 years after Molnar started his business, Chrysler Corp. sued him for federal trademark infringement. Molnar told the carmakers to take a hike, which they grudgingly did. Many sources believe that the name jeep originated with the letters GP, standing for "General Purpose," which were affixed to the iconic Willys MB U.S. Army Jeep from World War II. "



    Yet Chrysler has a valid trademark for 'Jeep' and has for many years (they purchased it from Willys who registered it in 1943), so they have every right to enforce it. It sounds like they agreed that there was no risk of confusion, so they dropped it.



    Simply having a nickname does not absolve you from trademark laws. If I called my daughter 'Michelle Pfeiffer' and she grew up to be an actress, she could not use the name 'Michelle Pfeiffer' even if I had called her that for years. His parents calling him 'jeep' is a red herring (want to bet that they called him that after hearing about the WIllys vehicle, anyway?).
  • Reply 51 of 118
    stottmstottm Posts: 14member
    1. CBS has the trademark and Apple licensed it from CBS correctly.

    2. M&M does not have a trademark for "Mighty Mouse", it's still pending.

    3. Apple has been selling the product for two years.



    M&M doesn't have a leg to stand on, in fact CBS could likely counter sue them into oblivion for violating their trademark. i.e. they sold a product with a trademark name that didn't belong to them in the first place.



    What's so good about a waterproof mouse? Even if it is used in hospitals... Mice are so cheap you just toss them and get a new one when they break.



    I've been in lots of hospitals, all the computers are mostly laptops mounted in push carts and the touchpad it used most of the time.
  • Reply 52 of 118
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Not ALL lawsuits are frivolous. If this other mouse existed before, and its name was legal, then Apple and/or CBS DID screw up. And it seems very likely to me that the original device's web search traffic--and therefore sales--was indeed drastically harmed. In which case, M&M was seriously harmed by Apple and CBS, through no fault of M&M's.



    Maybe M&M's claims are false. Maybe the mouse never existed or didn't use the Mighty Mouse name, or maybe CBS can demonstrate that THEY had the right to use the name for for hardware all along. (That makes sense to me--anyone using the name is clearly benefitting from CBS's brand.) I can see why a court needs to make that call though.



    Most importantly, someone needs to step up and force Apple to change the WORST product name ever Especially since it's the only mouse Apple makes, and comes with every Mac, so Apple doesn't need a catchy name to get people to buy it.
  • Reply 53 of 118
    skottichanskottichan Posts: 193member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    From March 1936...( source )









    Another shitty move by an automotive company...

    Uzi Nissan had established a business under his surname Nissan while Nissan was still Datsun and also registered the domain name as such before Nissan automotive thought to enter the world wide web.



    Oh that website cracks me up. Had Nissan not sued him, he'd have nothing. I mean, aside from whining about the Big Bad Nissan suing him, his site offers nothing to the world. It almost sounds like he was one of those guys in the 90's who'd bought out things like Disney.com then got rich off of selling the domain name.





    Oh and NIssan has been called Nissan since 1933. Dat-Sun was a subsidiary branch of the Nissan Heavy industries.
  • Reply 54 of 118
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Simply having a nickname does not absolve you from trademark laws. If I called my daughter 'Michelle Pfeiffer' and she grew up to be an actress, she could not use the name 'Michelle Pfeiffer' even if I had called her that for years. His parents calling him 'jeep' is a red herring (want to bet that they called him that after hearing about the WIllys vehicle, anyway?).



    I don't know if a person's name can be trademarked in that way. Multiple people are allowed to have the same name without having to check with the USPTO.



    At any rate, the SAG will require you to use something else as a screen name, but I don't think necessarily for trademark reasons.
  • Reply 55 of 118
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    From March 1936...( source )









    Another shitty move by an automotive company...

    Uzi Nissan had established a business under his surname Nissan while Nissan was still Datsun and also registered the domain name as such before Nissan automotive thought to enter the world wide web.



    This is why you have to be VERY careful listening to only one side of the story.



    NIssan Company cited first use of the trademark for automotive products in 1965 (Serial Number 76267105), so Mr. Nissan's "well documented prior use" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Funny how Mr. Nissan fails to mention that.



    Besides, he won the case. He was able to establish that Nissan Computers did not dilute Nissan Motor's trademark. Yes, it cost him money, but he chose to fight it because he apparently thought that the name was worth more than his legal expense.



    The only legitimate gripe he has is that justice isn't free-at least in civil cases. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone.
  • Reply 56 of 118
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stottm View Post


    What's so good about a waterproof mouse? Even if it is used in hospitals... Mice are so cheap you just toss them and get a new one when they break.



    I've been in lots of hospitals, all the computers are mostly laptops mounted in push carts and the touchpad it used most of the time.



    It's the fact that it is sealed up so you won't get a bunch of chemicals, body fluids and such in it and you can clean it with disinfectants.

    It's not the fact that it would quit working.
  • Reply 57 of 118
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    I don't know about that... Apple strong-armed Google, Yahoo, and MSN into denying anyone using click-ads to include the word iPod. You can't even advertise your product as being compatible with an iPod, nope... it's "illegal". I personally find that to be unfair, because if I designed a product that works with an iPod, such as an arm-band, I should be able to advertise saying that this armband was designed for the iPod. Some companies seem to slip through the cracks, but very rarely.



    As for the Mighty-Mouse name, how does that cause any damages to M&M. It's not like someone will end-up buying an Apple product instead! If anything it should've brought them more sales.



    Apple owns the name iPod. Therefore, anything used in conjunction with that, as a business, needs to be licensed. It's not a matter of "strongarming". It's the law. A company isn't allowed to use other's copyrights and trademarks without permission. Even in writing a book, permission is needed. You'll find that to be true everywhere.



    You may think it's unfair, but it's not. .you can say that your armband is compatible with some of the most popular players. That would work too. But if you want to use Apple's trademark, you should have to get permission. You're feeding off their success.



    The problem has to do with inappropriate use of the trademark which results in a negative opinion of it, or a dilution of it, which leads to the loss of the trademark entirely.



    A company is almost forced into defending it because of those reasons.



    If they don't defend it, it could fall into the public domain, as have so many other trademarks over the years.
  • Reply 58 of 118
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


    Their argument is, when you search for Mighty Mouse, you can't find the M&M one, even if you know what you are looking for. (Unless you remember the company name of "Man & Machine")



    I cant find their company easily (if ay all) when I try M&M in Google.



    So what does that prove? Not much.



    Remember when Tiger Direct sued Apple for the same reasons? They lost as well.



    Quote:

    I predict an out of court settlement: M&M gets a small payout from Apple and CBS, but in return both turns over the rights to their trademark application, AND starts paying a small royalty to use it in the future.



    Only if Apple is kind. I see no reason for them to give in on this. It's really a fight between M&M and CBS. CBS could protect Apple from needing to pay a settlement, the way IBM did with Linux customers in the SCO suit.
  • Reply 59 of 118
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skottichan View Post


    Oh that website cracks me up. Had Nissan not sued him, he'd have nothing. I mean, aside from whining about the Big Bad Nissan suing him, his site offers nothing to the world. It almost sounds like he was one of those guys in the 90's who'd bought out things like Disney.com then got rich off of selling the domain name.





    Oh and NIssan has been called Nissan since 1933. Dat-Sun was a subsidiary branch of the Nissan Heavy industries.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    This is why you have to be VERY careful listening to only one side of the story.



    NIssan Company cited first use of the trademark for automotive products in 1965 (Serial Number 76267105), so Mr. Nissan's "well documented prior use" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Funny how Mr. Nissan fails to mention that.



    Besides, he won the case. He was able to establish that Nissan Computers did not dilute Nissan Motor's trademark. Yes, it cost him money, but he chose to fight it because he apparently thought that the name was worth more than his legal expense.



    The only legitimate gripe he has is that justice isn't free-at least in civil cases. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone.



    I will admit that I do only know one side of the story and judged based on that. Regardless of when Nissan registered the name in the US it is his name, he did register a computer company with that name before domain names could be had, he did buy the name before Nissan and the name can not be confused with the automotive company. I still say he is in the right to the domain.



    I assume the 1933 date is for Japan, not the US, and the the 1965 date is for the US. Is that correct?
  • Reply 60 of 118
    machawkmachawk Posts: 2member
    Why did it take THIS LONG for this company to come out of the woodwork to sue Apple over this?... This is a frivolous lawsuit.
Sign In or Register to comment.